Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence

As is well known, proponents of creationism loudly contend that their doctrine
is surely scientific, not religious, and therefore nothing should stand in the
way of its being included in public school science curricula. This claim naturally
presents us with a tangle of several legal issues, not the least of which is the
danger of mandating by law that any specific view be taught. One thinks
immediately of the canonization of Lysenko in the Soviet Union, and one can well
imagine what would happen if racist fanatics succeeded in having the views of
Shockley or Jenson forcibly included in genetics courses. Creationists, it
seems, are oblivious to such dangers—or at least we may be charitable enough to
suppose so.

But an issue that is in some ways more interesting is that of church-state
separation. Would the mandated teaching of creationism constitute the promotion
of a religious doctrine by the government, something forbidden by the U.S.
constitution? Yes, it would. And this may be seen most clearly by comparing
"scientific creationism" to the Marharishi Mahesh Yogi's transcendental
mediation. The latter was briefly offered for credit in public high schools
until fundamentalist Christians blew the whistle on the religious nature of this
supposed "science of creative intelligence." The parallels between scientific
creationism and the science of creative intelligence are both surprising and
revealing and therefore will be explored in detail in this article.

From Religion to Science

Maharishi ("Great Seer") Mahesh Yogi, an Indian guru in the Vedanta tradition,
set out in 1959 to bring a simplified version of "transcendental deep mediation"
to the samsara-soaked West. The origins of the practice were clearly in the
monistic Hinduism of Shankara, wherein the goal of religion—of human existence
itself—is to pass beyond the illusion (maya) of diversity and so to realize
one's identity with Brahman, the impersonal absolute, conceived as the eternal
essence preceding all existence. This fact is nowhere more clearly seen than in
the

- page 19 -

Maharishi's own commentary on the first six chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, the
key text of Vedanta Hinduism. When the guru founded an organization to spread
his faith in America, there was no doubt as to its religious nature. It was
called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of
incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this
corporation is a religious one" (article eleven).

During the years 1967 and 1968, Maharishi and his lieutenants reluctantly
decided that their movement had met with little success. Few Americans had seen
the light. So a change in tactics was deemed necessary. Given the American
people's infatuation with science and the American government's disinclination
to abet religious propaganda, the course of action seemed clear. Transcendental
meditation would die as a religion and rise again (or be "reincarnated") as a
science.

In actuality, no substantial change was envisioned. For Krishna characterizes
reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita, "As leaving aside worn-out garments/A man
[merely] takes other, new ones" (11:22). Maharishi's rationale was that, if one
were going to cast his pearls before swine, he ought to disguise the pearls as
something the swine could appreciate. "Not in the name of God-realization can we
call a man to meditate in the world today, but in the name of enjoying the world
better, sleeping well at night, being wide awake during the day" (Maharishi,
Meditations of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, p. 168, and in Bjornstad, p. 22).
Isn't this a little dishonest? Rest easy, it is only a bit of "heavenly
deception." In his commentary on the Gita, Maharishi explained that, "if the
enlightened man wants to bless one who is ignorant, he should meet him on the
level of his ignorance and try to lift him up from there by giving him the key
to transcending [it], so that he may gain bliss-consciousness and experience the
Reality of life. He should not tell him about the level of the realized, because
it would only confuse him" (Maharishi as quoted in Patton, p. 55). Theory became
practice. Vail Hamilton, a former TM instructor, recalls the organization's
strategy:

An ordinary person, doing an eight-to-five job, who never thought about anything
of a philosophical or religious nature, might be put off by hearing
about higher states of consciousness, like God-consciousness, but he would
understand it at the level of relaxing, getting rid of the cigarette habit,
things
like that. So then, you get a person into it then, so that their stress can
start getting released, and then, eventually, they will be able to accept the
idea of
going on to higher states. ("TM Behind Close Doors," Right On, November 1975, p.
12).

But, as already anticipated, a new flavor was not all the guru wanted for his
product. New marketing methods were sought as well: "It seems for the present,
that this transcendental deep meditation should be made available to the peoples
through the agencies of government. It is not the time when any effort to

- page 20 -

perpetuate a new and useful ideology without the help of governments can succeed"
(Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Transcendental Mediation, p. 300, and in Patton, p. 54).
Transcendental Meditation got that help in 1975 when it was offered for credit in the public school systems of Dade County, Florida, Louisville,
Kentucky, Eastchester, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, San Lorenzo, California,
and Essex County, New Jersey. By this time, a new charter had eliminated references to
the organization's religious aims, and the name was changed to the "World Plan
Executive Council."

About the same time, Christian creationists opposing evolution changed their
tactics in an analogous manner. The turning point seems to have been a 1975
decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, declaring unconstitutional a
Tennessee law mandating that textbooks include the discussion of Genesis alongside
evolution. To require a discussion of the Bible in this way was seen as
tantamount to state promotion of religion. Henceforth, fundamentalists sought
"equal time" not for religious but for scientific creationism. Creationist leader
Henry M. Morris reveals the logic underlying this cosmetic change in terms
paralleling point-for-point those of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: "The Bible account
of creation can be taught in the public schools only if the scientific aspects of
creationism are taught, keeping the Bible and religion out of it altogether"
(Morris, p. 4). Morris, like Maharishi, covets the aid of the government, for he
envisions "political or legislative efforts to require creationist teaching ..."
(p. 1). So, in both the case of TM and fundamentalism, we have witnessed a surface
metamorphosis of avowed religion into alleged science. The first became the
"science of creative intelligence"; while the second took the alias of "scientific
creationism." Of the first Maharishi claims, "It is not religious"; of the
second, Morris contends, "Creation is just as much a science as is evolution."

Deus Absconditus

How did each group try to support its claim to be purely scientific and not
religious? First, there were attempts to provide scientific documentation for each
belief system. TM cited various studies tending to confirm that meditators
experienced reduced breath rates, a decrease in blood lactate, and increased alpha
and beta brain waves. However, such claims were problematical. For one thing,
they could never lend credence to the basic claim that in the meditative state
one made contact with the "field of creative intelligence," since this field
allegedly underlies all particularized existence and therefore by definition could
never be tested. So the verifiable part was, at most, the relaxation technique. On
one level this very fact might be seen as vindicating the claim that TM was a
simple technique and not a religion. Yet the fact remained that TM was never
offered without indoctrination into the metaphysics of "creative intelligence"
or participation in a

- page 21 -

Sanskrit ritual invoking various gods and devas. So some tests might indicate at
least that the relaxation technique of TM produces concrete results. "But the
beneficial changes attributed to TM are not universally accepted by scientists.
Some researchers have been unable to replicate certain findings, while others
argue over the interpretation of results" (Montgomery, p. 64). In particular,
the studies were flawed by the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy—or the
placebo effect. Neurophysiologist Peter Fenwick warns: "All these studies need
to be looked upon with reservations. Few include adequate control groups, and
none that I am aware of have yet used a blind control procedure where neither
subject nor observer is aware of the treatment given or the aims of the
experiment" (Fenwick as quoted in Haddon, p. 7). Such "blind control procedures"
were especially unlikely since many or most of these experiments were conducted
by the TM organization or by meditators. This is rather like the American
Tobacco Industry producing statistics about the safety of smoking. In neither
case could the results be dismissed out of hand, but we are entitled to be on
our guard.

We are no less suspicious of some of the scientific documentation offered by
creationists. The evidence will be naturally of a different kind, creation not
being a repeatable process. Most often creationists appeal to fossils and the
like. Both their investigative procedures and their interpretations are
questionable. Michigan State's Donald Weinshank checked into several field
research projects conducted by the Institute for Creation Research and announced
that "not one of these came even close to observing the accepted standards of
the scientific method" (Weinshank as quoted in Zuidema, p. 5). Also troubling is
the propensity of creationists to make a great deal of soon-discredited "freak
phenomena"—a la Erich von Daniken. For instance, creationists pointed with glee
to a set of human footprints (from their size, apparently belonging to the
Incredible Hulk) found beside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy River Basin in
Texas. Kelly Segraves, instigator of a recent California anti-evolution suit,
contended that this find must compel scientists to revise completely their views
as to the order of the appearance of life (Segraves, p. 17). Instead, perhaps
Segraves will be compelled to revise his propaganda in light of the recent
admission by area residents that the humanoid prints were chiseled beside
genuine fossils as a tourist attraction (Zuidema, p. 5).

Besides the adducing of questionable evidence, both the science of creative
intelligence and scientific creationism seek to reinfo, , rce their scientific, even
secular, status by the manipulation of language. Both have issued textbooks
which outline clearly religious belief systems, yet hope to hide their religious
nature by substituting various nomenclature for "God." The TM textbook used in
public schools described the "field of creative intelligence" as being
omnipresent, as being the source and goal of all existence, the guide and
sustainer of the universe, pure love, truth, and justice, unlimited in power,
the source of being, and so on. Instead of "God" or "brahman," of which the
preceding are all unmistakably divine attributes, the textbook makes them mere
"qualities" of "creative intelligence."

- page 22 -

Yet even this apparently innocuous jargon is a Vedic
designation of God. He is "the impulse of creative intelligence responsible for
the whole manifest universe" (Rig-Veda I.164.39 in Patton, p. 53).

The same sort of sleight-of-hand is present in both the standard and public
school editions of the creationist textbooks written by Henry Morris and Duane
T. Gish. The latter edition removes some overtly religious references and omits
God in favor of generic terms such as designer. Divine creation may become
special creation. One can almost hear the biblical cock crowing in the
background. In short, it would seem that both movements, in order to gain access
to public schools for propaganda purposes, sought to disguise their religious
nature using the strategy of "covering their tracks." The meditator or the
creationist presents his belief system, whereupon the observer responds, "Say,
wait a minute. This is religion!" The other merely replies, "Oh, no it's not.
We'd never try that! Rest assured, this is science." The hope is that the
skeptic will be satisfied that his fears have been allayed and that he will go
on to accept what is offered, ignoring the taste because the label has been
changed.

The Legal Precedent

In the case of the science of creative intelligence, the ploy did not finally
succeed. When fundamentalists protested what amounted to the teaching of
Hinduism in the public schools, the court examined TM's claims not to be
religious and found them wanting. While this could mean intentional subterfuge
on the part of the Maharishi's organization, the New Jersey Supreme Court found
no need to make such an implication. But it did claim to know better than the
meditators themselves whether or not their practice was in fact religious. For
no matter how sincere the meditators' conviction in this regard, the Court ruled
that the facts spoke for themselves.

In so ruling, Judge Meanor appealed to the 1970 decision, Welsh vs. United
States, 398 U.S. 333. This case involved the 1965 decision in United States vs.
Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, in which Seeger claimed conscientious objector status on
the grounds that, though his moral opposition to war did not entail theistic
beliefs, he felt that his convictions were nevertheless religious in nature. The
court agreed, ruling that the legal definition of religion need not involve
theism. In 1970 Welsh contended for conscientious objector status on the basis
of moral beliefs similar to Seeger's, yet he denied that they were religious
beliefs. Could not other heartfelt convictions besides religious faith entitle
one to exemption? The court ruled that Welsh's beliefs were in fact religious in
the eyes of the state, despite Welsh's own subjective evaluation of them as
nonreligious. Similarly, Judge Meanor decided that the belief by meditators that
TM was secular does not make it nonreligious. The science of creative
intelligence is not considered secular science

- page 23 -

by the courts, and it is no longer taught in the public schools.

The relevance of the precedent thus established is obvious. No matter how
strenuously and sincerely scientific creationists maintain the nonreligious
character of their "model," the facts speak for themselves. And, on the analogy
with Judge Meanor's decision, it is the facts and not their subjective evaluation
by the creationists themselves that must finally decide the issue. The teaching of
creationism in public schools would constitute a violation of the U.S.
Constitution as the promotion of religion under government auspices. We may hope
that fundamentalists who have demonstrated their zeal for church-state
separation in the case of TM will continue to see the wisdom of such separation in
the case of creationism. Granted, faithfulness to our common American heritage
will seem more costly in this case, since it is their own belief that is
concerned, but freedom of
religion in America has always depended on exchanging privilege for one's own
sect for the security of never being disadvantaged in favor of someone else's.

Robert Price teaches ethics and philosophy at Bergen Community College, has a
Ph.D. in theological and religious studies from Drew University, and has
authored a number of articles on religious and philosophical issues.